Nokia has exciting news for N900 users - Page 48 - maemo.org

cjp | # 471 | 2010-07-26, 16:12 | Report

So the big surprise was a paint program for N900... :l

Okay :l

danramos | # 472 | 2010-07-26, 16:16 | Report

Originally Posted by cjp View Post

So the big surprise was a paint program for N900... :l

Okay :l

What? No, I thought it was the fcam app, drivers and api?

pthomas22 | # 473 | 2010-07-26, 16:16 | Report

Originally Posted by cjp View Post

So the big surprise was a paint program for N900... :l

Okay :l

No
It is probably best that you read the thread before making a comment

cjp | # 474 | 2010-07-26, 16:18 | Report

Haha I did and read the last couple of pages and wondered why the subject was suddenly on FCam

Sorry, my bad. But that link in the 1st post now leads to MyPaint demo videos

HugoSon | # 475 | 2010-07-26, 16:35 | Report

Originally Posted by danramos View Post

JPEG doesn't "bake those in" any more than TIFF, DNG or RAW. Once you have the image and you begin to process the image, ALL the data is just as malleable and useful as anything RAW gives you. Hell, JPEG even borrows a page out of TIFF and records a lot of that in the EXIF metadata. RAW isn't a format. It's just a proprietary aperture dump. Putting it into a 100% quality JPEG with EXIF metadata would record most of the same information (ALL of the info, if you use the MakerNote tag in the EXIF metadata) with pretty decent quality and it would at least work everywhere. To that end, unless I'm still missing something, I don't see the utility of the RAW dump. Mind you, we're also still only talking about a 5MP cell phone camera, too.

...i.E. "white balance" is "baked" into the JPEG file - and there is no way to change it afterwards without losing quality once a certain white balance has been applied (“once the RAW dump has been converted into JPEG file format applying a certain white balance algorithm”). But I agree - there is no strict "RAW is better than JPEG". Shooting RAW normally gives you more control in order to maximize the image quality potential - even with a 5MP cell phone cam with a plastic lens - during post process without losing quality (and no camera does store the JPEG files with lossless "100%" quality). But this comes with a trade-off of speed, ease of use and storage place needed for the RAW files.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HugoSon For This Useful Post:
danramos, walter-se

daperl | # 476 | 2010-07-26, 17:41 | Report

Someone help me with my math here. This is from

/usr/include/FCam/N900/Sensor.h

Code:

Recommended resolutions to use in UYVY mode include
* 640x480, 1280x960, 2560x1920, and 2576x1944 (which is not quite
* 4:3).

Code:

/** The minimum frame time on the N900 is the 33414 us for
* smaller resolutions (height <= 960), and 77412 us for larger
* resolutions. */
virtual int minFrameTime() const {return 33414;}

I take that to mean:

1 / 33414 us = 29.92 fps @ 1280x960

If my math is correct, and with some help from some really good code and maybe more help from the other processors, doesn't it seem that

25 fps @ 1280x720 is possible?

j.s | # 477 | 2010-07-26, 19:41 | Report

Originally Posted by danramos View Post

As for my Android handset using Camera360, it can (and I have set it up to) write a 100% quality JPEG file for a near lossless JPEG file.

There is no standard for the meaning for JPEG % quality. Different software interprets the number differently. In no case does it mean the best quality possible.

The Independent JPEG Group, authors of the free and open source libjpeg, reccomend never using above 90% for images compressed by libjpeg.

The Following User Says Thank You to j.s For This Useful Post:
danramos

inidrog | # 478 | 2010-07-26, 19:47 | Report

Hi I am a N900 user, what is the "exiting news" for me. Can anyone sum it up in a few words?

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to inidrog For This Useful Post:
joshua.maverick, Lawand

Ayodeji | # 479 | 2010-07-26, 20:52 | Report

Originally Posted by daperl View Post

Someone help me with my math here. This is from

/usr/include/FCam/N900/Sensor.h

Code:

Recommended resolutions to use in UYVY mode include
* 640x480, 1280x960, 2560x1920, and 2576x1944 (which is not quite
* 4:3).

Code:

/** The minimum frame time on the N900 is the 33414 us for
* smaller resolutions (height <= 960), and 77412 us for larger
* resolutions. */
virtual int minFrameTime() const {return 33414;}

I take that to mean:

1 / 33414 us = 29.92 fps @ 1280x960

If my math is correct, and with some help from some really good code and maybe more help from the other processors, doesn't it seem that

25 fps @ 1280x720 is possible?

The camera hardware on the N900 is capable of generating frames at that rate. However, encoding video at that rate is the more challenging part.

itsANDREW | # 480 | 2010-07-26, 21:12 | Report

Originally Posted by inidrog View Post

Hi I am a N900 user, what is the "exiting news" for me. Can anyone sum it up in a few words?

Absolutely nothing.

The Following User Says Thank You to itsANDREW For This Useful Post:
inidrog